Message Board Archives

impetuous, petulant, bratty, arrogant, and stubborn. Kohli, however, is not nearly as smart as Lara. And when I say smart, I mean conniving. He doesn't come across as the backstabbing type, or one to sabotage. He's made it clear from the start that he'll pick the best XI based on conditions, form, etc etc. Win or lose, India never seem to play the same XI.

I don't agree with the thought process, but it's worked out for them the overwhelming majority of the time. Kohli makes it clear that he has full confidence in each and every member of the squad. He expects the same result regardless of which XI is played.

Personally, I never thought Kohli was captaincy material, and nothing has changed to alter my opinion.

What I will say is that Kohli is a far superior batsman to Lara. Much better technique, wider array of strokes, more pleasing to the eye, and Kohli looks to attack every single bowler. Lara, on the other hand, would often avoid fast bowlers at all costs and then launch an attack on slow-medium and spin bowlers. Once again, Lara is no doubt the smarter batsman, but in a cowardly pantyseed kind-of-way.

In reply to Devin

In reply to che

but che yuh skinning teeth with the poison dwarf

leh me break it down fuh yuh ...... it is accepted that lara is the best batsman we have ever produced and one of the greatest of all time

In reply to ponderiver

How is that a diss to Richards and Sobers, etc etc? You flipping jack@ss.

In reply to Devin

In reply to Courtesy

Lol. Spell check in reverse.

In reply to Courtesy

In reply to Devin

Richardson wasn't the same one who met the Aussie fast mediums with a helmet in Antigua and was promptly booed to and from the wicket? You check any of sobers or richards hundreds and you will see the majority of their runs came from the lesser bowlers while managing to successfully negotiate the great ones. You feel that if richards scored a ton vs lillee or imran that 65 or 70% of the runs come off of them? That is intelligence not cowardice.

In reply to Jumpstart

great article ...... the poison dwarf will throw a hissy fit when he reads this

In reply to ponderiver

You know Devin's arguments come from an irrational position so it probably won't.
Kohli needs to stop being a spoil brat, he even got angry with ngidi for celebrating close to him legitimately, not even like the umpire made a mistake

Lara averaged 40.24 from 1996-2000/2001 from 43 Tests. Never scored a test century against Donald and Pollock or Waqar and Wasim.

In reply to Devin

The SA tour should have never taken place. Players on both sides have said so in hindsight. The only reason that lara didn't score runs on that tour was because of pat Rousseau and his foolishness, a problem which extends to our day. Brian has scored ODI hundreds against waqar and wasim on Sabina park, then one of the bouciest wickets in the world. Lara made 96 against the two w's in QPO in the 3rd innings in a match where highest team score was 140 by pakistan where pace took 37 of the 40 wickets, plus only two 50's and one hundred. Ironically on 96 and cutting a ball to the boundary, lara was bowled by a SPINNER. Lara has also scored an odi hundred against donald at bloemfontein.

In reply to Devin

Coinciding with one of the worst periods in WI cricket, something none of his contemporaries had to go through. Don't tell me about tendulkar because he had Ganguly and Azharuddin. Hooper had the attention span of a flea and chanders was not a great as yet

In reply to Jumpstart

Tendulkar played 8 years of test cricket before Dravid arrived. Ganguly and Azzarudhin were like most Indian batsmen; tigers at home, and pussies abroad.

Ganguly made his debut alongside Dravid.

In reply to Devin

Ganguly didn't score his first hundred AWAY from home on debut, at Lords?
As for Azhar....here are some links to the contrary
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Li1uwB_3hA
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uh714DK4SwQ
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=czDw-xs489g
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2VBohFIuz9g
All innings outside of india, the third is at capetown vs donald and co in a match india eventually lost

In reply to Devin

Some a$$hole was saying Lara never had a strong team..in 1998,Lara team had Ambrose,Walsh,Hooper,Chaderpaul,Padams that got its ass whipped in SA..

In reply to Khaga

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA DE man say hooper.....i nearly ded. HOOPS was de biggest liabilty in cricket history. Hoops finished with an avg of 36 for as #4 batsman. Khaga your standards can go lower than a razor blade. Have some shame nah. Walsh and Ambrose had good SA tours. In no test did SA really get away but first they needed something to defend
http://www.espn.com/cricket/story/_/id/17950556/bc-pires-carl-hooper
Bc Pires on the hoops. A good player is expected to get past 50 in every 10 innings and im stretching the range specifically for the hoops man

In reply to Jumpstart

thanks for the links
Azhar was a great batsman he backed it up no hype required.

Ganguly was a great captain perhaps India's finest he was also an outstanding batsman too

In reply to ponderiver

Poor leader would suffice.

Save our time...next time.

Perhaps I will need the help of Courtesy to confirm this but I am almost sure that a month ago Devin was distancing Kholi from anything West Indian including any comparison to Lara only to now do a 360.

In reply to ponderiver

Azhar averaged 55.93 with 24 scores of 50 or more from 66 innings at home.

Away from home, he averaged 36.40 with 19 scores of 50 or more from 81 innings.

Ganguly's test average was 42.18.

In reply to carl0002

360 or a 180? Jackass.

In reply to Devin

In reply to RemainsUnknown

Running round and round in circles.

In reply to Devin
But...but you come full circle. The position you were distancing uself from is where you ended up. In any case better a Jackass than the aperture from Kholis colon.

In reply to Devin

In reply to Jumpstart

What does any of it have to do with the fact that Lara couldn't score a century against Donald and Pollock or Waqar and Wasim?

In reply to carl0002

In reply to Devin

But i told you already he has. He has a century vs donald at bloemfontein in 1993. He also has odi hundreds vs waqar and wasim at sabina,and he has scored 96 vs wasim and waqar in 1993 also. In that innings he was dismissed by a spinner, Asif Mujtaba. If being dismissed by a spinner counts as being dominated by waqar and wasim, then i cannot argue with u. He also scored an odi hundred vs wasim and waqar at Perth, yes the infamous WACA ground. Mike atherton has 2 hundreds vs donald and polock, is he better than lara? Hoss, u hadda be a sucker for punishment. Even facing a world class bowling lineup and the all the offfield distractions, lara still managed to make 2 fifties during his first time playing tests in the country which is much more that Emperor kohli did on his first english tour

In reply to Jumpstart

Now you jumping to ODIs?

In reply to carl0002

What position was I distancing myself from? They have certain things in common from a personality standpoint, but Kohli doesn't operate like a woman, nor is he devious or two-faced.

I stated why I think Kohli is a far superior batsman.

In reply to ponderiver

Ganguly? India's finest? Put the crack pipe down son

I'm a Kohli fan. Great batsman and I actually like the way he plays his cricket. He's an absolute maniac. It's great. But. I certainly don't agree he's a 'far superior batsman to Lara'. More consistent yes.

Lara could've and should've made alot more runs & hundreds than he did. There were definitely times when he wasn't hungry enough. Been mentioned he didn't score a hundred v Donald & Pollock & Wasim & Waqar but he did manage a 5th day 153* against McGrath,Gillespie, Warne & MacGill on a badly deterioating deck. Still probably the finest test innings i've seen. Kohli will go on to make more hundreds, score more runs and probably have a better average than Lara. Does that make him a better batsman? Well.Stats aren't everything kiddies. Steve Smith averages around 63. Viv averaged 50. Great player Smith but cmonnn. If he's a 13 run avg better player than Viv was i'm a skinny chinamen. Bigger bats. Flatter decks. All plays a part. What's wrong with saying they're both great players and leaving it at that?

For any comparative analysis to be meaningful, a criteria needs to be developed and agreed upon which can then compare cricket data across different eras. This is an arduous task.

Anyone pulling out "the greatest" from a vast grouping of qualified individuals without showing his/her criteria hand is a fool and is only speaking from his/her ass...shun him/her.

In reply to mental_case

Inferior bowlers, flatter covered wickets etc

In reply to mental_case

You know why many/most West Indians rate Viv ahead of Lara? It's because he was a manly batsman. There wasn't any hopping and jumping and exposing your leg stump any time someone with a little pace bowled a short one.

Holding made a lengthy comparison between Kohli and Viv during his commentary stint today. He talked about all the reasons why Virat reminds him of Viv.

The only time I've heard Kohli compared to Lara is when Chappell remarked that Virat may be even better than Brian at finding the gaps.

In reply to Devin

He made a comparison on their atitudes. Certainly not on their batting.

On the courage issue, your miopic and possibly racist opinion is not shared by any cricket watcher. Cricket watcher described lara as having an insatiable apetite for runs and being the exemplification of courage. Anybody who carries n infirmed team with no complaints and taking all the blame for the indiscipline that stalked the teams he was ed with. Devin, people appreciated richards because he was unashamedly black and by a mile the best batsman of the 80s and quite probably of all time. Which also why some persons at home and abroad resented him and he in turn resented them

In reply to mental_case